By Rev. D. A. MACFARLANE, Dingwall.
“And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” (Act xiii. 32, 33).
IN verse 14 of the chapter, we find Paul and his company coming to Antioch in Pisidia. They went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day and sat down. After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. The apostle Paul, as the chief spokesman of the company, preached to them what is left on record. The divisions of the address are easily seen. The first is from verse 16 to verse 22; the second from verse 23 to verse 25; the third from verse 26 to verse 37; and the last, which has the exhortation and the warning of doom if Christ is rejected, is from verse 38 to verse 41.
- In this first part or stage of his address, from verse 16 to verse 22, Paul is evidently conciliatory, so addressing them on what they, and he, and Israel, had in common that he thereby prepares the way for an acceptable hearing. One feels that he rapidly focussed their attention on what he was about to preach to them. He knew it might, and probably would, prove unpalatable to many, or all, of them. The Gospel that the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah and the alone Saviour was “the foolishness of God,” and the “weakness of God” to many Jews from the Day of Pentecost, as it still is to many Jews and Gentiles. The Lord, however, by the foolishness of preaching, was saving those who believed. Paul addressed them as “men of Israel,” and later on, in verse 26, as “children of the stock of Abraham.” By recalling the history of their forefathers from the time of their bondage and exodus from Egypt down to the days of David, he emphasized their common racial and religious history—that is, of his own company and of a large part of his hearers. Many of those present were evidently proselytes. Paul would have had in view, although not at the outset referring to them, the “rulers” of verse 27. These three parties were all “men of Israel.” They all had divine privileges, as summarised by him elsewhere in the words, “who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.” So much for this part. The audience doubtless quickly felt at home with one who was evidently so much at home in the history and ways of their forefathers.
The second point of note regarding the opening part of the address is Paul’s mental pin-pointing of the promise to raise up of the seed of David, according to the flesh, a Saviour, Jesus. It is indeed implied in his statement regarding David in verse 22, and then explicitly declared in verse 23. One might prefer to bring verse 23 under the first section, were it not that we leave the historical narrative and by verse 23 come to the historical fulfilment of the promise. The wording of the divine promise is given in Psalm cxxxii. 11: “The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn, from it; of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne”; so also II. Sam. vii. 12-14, with the fulfilment of it in Heb. i. 1-5. This promise and its fulfilment is the subject of Paul’s sermon.
-
The next part regarding the historical realization of the Messianic promise is from verse 23 to verse 25. John the Baptist was raised up. As the forerunner of Christ, he preached that he was about to be manifested to Israel. Whether John saw the Saviour or not, in the flesh, when he uttered the words of verse 25, may not be evident. He certainly discerned His glory as the Son of God. The words of John show that he had the same spirit and insight into the glory of the Person of Christ as Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah and the other prophets and servants of the Lord had. To discern that the “shoes of His feet I am not worthy to loose” is just to say that John worshipped the Saviour, who was to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. What a rich baptism John had of the spirit of the Saviour! What love, devotion, holy adoration filled his soul! While Paul did not handle at length John’s testimony, he knew well that that testimony was sealed by all three Persons of the Godhead at the baptismal inauguration of the Saviour to His public ministry. The Father by the voice—the Holy Spirit coming in the form of a dove—the Saviour by His word to John and baptism—all set to their seal to John’s witness. The Messianic Son was come in the flesh. The promise to David was thus far fulfilled. This is the end of the second stage of the sermon.
-
The third division is from verse 26 to verse 37, and is the much more difficult part of the discourse, not exactly from the point of view of Paul’s argument but owing, we think, regrettably, to constructions put upon some of the terms and expressions. We saw already that the audience and Paul’s company were “men of Israel,” and that Paul had mentally before him “they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers.” Were all these parties of one mind? Or if the “rulers”—to keep them, as representatives of the people, mainly before us at present—had been with Paul and his company in the Pisidian synagogue, would they all have received “this salvation” (verse 26)? Clearly not. The rulers of the Antiochian synagogue, Paul felt, might say, or enquire, “If this promised and prophesied Saviour and expressions were in actuality revealed to Israel by, and from the time of, John the Baptist, why did not, and why do not, these rulers in Jerusalem confess Him and it and set their seal to John’s witness, as God by His voice and the Holy Spirit by his descending on Christ did? Paul’s task is to set forth the fact of this cleavage and the reason. He does so. The rulers, meaning hereby those abandoned to their own wisdom and ways to become apostates, totally and finally rejected Jesus of Nazareth as the anointed Saviour and divinely-promised King of Israel. Instead of receiving Him as Simeon, Anna, Zacharias, godly women, Peter, John
the apostle, Nathanael, and multitudes did—for many of the children of Israel through the preaching of John were turned to the Lord their God—they increased in enmity and bitterness toward the Saviour, until their longed-for hour to wreak vengeance on Him at last came. They acted as freely in all their doings and dealings as if Christ were powerless to thwart them—as if there were no over-ruling hand nor decree, purpose nor counsel of heaven. Their heart was in their work. They judged indeed that they were doing God service. Did not this Jesus of Nazareth make light of the law of Moses and irritate elders of the synagogues by his Sabbath profanation? When the hour came, Jesus was condemned by these rulers—also by Pilate who was astute enough to see at a glance that this Man was innocence itself of all laid to his charge. Even Herod had no cloud of uneasiness coming over him when the Saviour was arraigned before him. But they out-manoeuvred Pilate by the dread fear of Rome. This was the crowbar which levered Pilate over, against his real judgment. One may even see that there was an unearthly awe in connection with the presence and bearing of Christ which touched Pilate to the quick. And there was that dream. But the fear of Rome tipped the scales. Christ was condemned, was crucified. The reason for the rulers acting thus is given in verse 27: “because they knew Him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath-day, they have fulfilled them in condemning Him.” So the argument is: “Had they known it, the hidden wisdom, and ‘mystery’ of I. Cor. ii. 7-8, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Had they known the voices of the prophets, they would not have done it. To know the voices of the prophets involves knowing Christ—to know Christ’s voice involves having the right kind of understanding in the prophets. They fulfilled all that was written of Him. They took Him down from the tree. They laid Him in a sepulchre. Paul ascribes all this to them as in effect they did so that the bodies of those crucified might not be there after sunset, for the morrow was a high day. This is the end, one would think, of Jesus of Nazareth, and of the promise to David. But Paul then proceeds to the other and next part of his great and profound message, namely: “God raised Him from the dead.”
Christ was already raised up (verse 23) of the seed of David in virtue of His coming in the flesh. What we have now, from verse 30 to verse 37—as far as we can judge—is that despite being crucified, slain and buried—the Old Testament promise was nevertheless fulfilled as He was raised up from the grave. Paul brought before them in proof of the resurrection of Christ, first, the fact of there being many witnesses in Jerusalem and Galilee, during many days, when He went out and in among them; secondly, that hereby Old Testament prophecies and promises were fulfilled, as Psalm xvi. 10: “Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption”; also, “I will give you the sure mercies of David.” We leave over consideration of the lively oracle of Psalm ii. at present. There were many witnesses that Christ was risen, and their testimony was confirmed by, and was in perfect harmony with, the Old Testament declarations concerning the sufferings of Christ and the glory to follow. So the promise to David which was Paul’s text did not get entombment finally among the hundred pound weight of myrrh and aloes in the new tomb in the garden. It was not suffered to see corruption. We may reverently say that the Lord said to it as to the Saviour: “I will show thee the
path of life; in my presence is fulness of joy; at my right hand there are pleasures for evermore.” Christ rose. During the time when they did unto Him as they listed, there was a transaction going on in the invisible world between Him and the Father. We can only and need advert to it here very briefly. He was by eternal decree the anointed King of Zion—of the kingdom of grace in this world and in glory hereafter. But to be King thus, He must be the Suffering Servant. By His humiliation, obedience unto the death of the cross, He was to bring in everlasting redemption for the heirs of salvation. “For this cause He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” Not only despite their dealings, but in the manifold wisdom of God, by means of their dealings—as part of the cup given Him to drink, He brought about the eternal fulfilling of the decree—of the promise of Psalm cxxxii.—that He would be the anointed King of the kingdom of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost in the hearts of His people in time and in eternity. The virtue, divine and intrinsic worth and merit of His obedience unto death and penal sufferings throughout all the state of His humiliation, sorrow, anguish and death, with what His entombment implies were His—as a censer filled full with incense—on the morning of the Resurrection. His Messianic Kingship is established for ever to endure on the whose course of His humiliation from His conception to the tomb. He is the Priest. He is the divinely-worthy offering. He on the morning of the resurrection is the censer and the incense—incense which is inexhaustible in a censer which is infinite, eternal and unchangeable, because “Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel.” The resurrection was the fulfillment in a special way of the lively oracle of God to David. It was the evidence of Christ being eternally accepted in His sacrifice. It was the pledge of His flock being gathered in. It was and is the model of what believers are to be in their souls and bodies at His second coming. By the resurrection He passed into the state of exaltation to be Head and King of His body, the Church—to be King over all for the Church—to be Judge of quick and dead at the last day—when He will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee—gather them together as the sheep of Bozrah, for did not the Breaker come up? “And their King shall pass before them and the Lord on the head of them.”
So far, it may be noticed, no more was done regarding Psalm ii. than to refer to it, and to a point or two in the text of this section, verses 28-33. As some of you are aware for many years, the expression, “raised up” in verse 33 is held by some outstanding expositors of the text to refer to the incarnation; by others to mean the same as in verses 30 and 34 where the phrase, “from the dead,” is added. Addison Alexander and A. T. Robertson are both agreed that the “raising up” without the reference to the resurrection refers to verse 23. Many others—quite a number of them—are not satisfied that this is so. Is there any definite need for endeavouring—shall we say—to narrow the matter down to such an extent? May we not be content to agree that as Christ was raised up in His incarnation and then, as is explicitly declared in verse 30 and verse 34, that He was raised from the dead, one has the cardinal doctrines of the faith and their implications? Why belabour the matter further?
Perhaps such a view should be taken. Still, if we can carefully and accurately ascertain what view of the verb should be taken in verse 33, it may be helpful in unexpected ways. Addison Alexander has rightly such prestige in the world of evangelical exposition that it is with diffidence and profound respect for the noble servant of God anyone should feel required to differ. The question, however, arises, what view should we take on the whole, without laying down any Medo-Persian law that the other many not also be reasonably and usefully held? To offer a personal opinion in the circumstances, we are constrained at present at least to take the view that the raising-up of verse 33 does not immediately and specifically point back to verse 23—that is, to the incarnation and public manifestation to Israel in the time of John the Baptist, but that Paul repeats what he said in verse 30, without feeling it needful to add the words, “from the dead,”—which, however, he does in the next verse. When the section from verse 28 to verse 33 is held up to the gaze of the eyes, and viewed as a unit of thought, one finds the current flowing as follows: “The One raised up according to the Davidic promise, and preached by John the Baptist, was condemned by the rulers—by Pilate—was slain and entombed. Where is the promise? But (verse 30) God raised Him from the dead—He appeared to witnesses, and so we declare unto you glad tidings how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children in that He hath raised up Jesus again, as it is written in the second Psalm: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” The translators of the A.V. are satisfied that the raising-up of verse 33 clearly refers to the resurrection. What appears to be the cause of difficulty to Addison Alexander and Robertson is that because the words, “from the dead,” are not always added, then it must refer only to the incarnation and manifestation to Israel. This should not necessarily be so. We would add, for those who care to pursue the matter in a way that cannot be done here much further, that the term, “fulfilled,” in verse 33, is not the ordinary one used for fulfilling. It is a strengthened intensive form, meaning: “God hath out-and-out fulfilled—come betrayal, come scourging, come cross, come grave—God hath fulfilled out-and-out, completely, and for eternity, this lively oracle to David. And this brings us to a brief consideration of the second Psalm as quoted and, under divine guidance, used by Paul. Here we use part of what Dr. Addison Alexander sets forth on verse 33. . . . “In the second Psalm, . . . God is represented as proclaiming the organic law, or constitution of Messiah’s Kingdom, and uttering as its fundamental principle the intimate relation of Messiah to Himself, not merely mutual affection, but community of nature. . . . The expression in the Psalm, ‘I have begotten thee,’ means, ‘I am He who has begotten thee, i.e., I am thy father.'”
This quotation sets forth the eternal Sonship of the Second Person of the Godhead. This very Son, the brightness of God’s glory and the express image of His person, God from eternity appointed to be the Messiah—King of Zion. This means that whatever befel the Saviour, He would still be the Son of God, with all that this implies (cf.: “who, being in the form of God,” Phil. ii. 6). With regard to all stages of the life-history of the Saviour, in His humiliation and exaltation, this holds true: “Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee.” It is
appropriate regarding Him at His incarnation—entrance to His public ministry—transfiguration—ascension to glory (Heb. i. 5), and it is used regarding His priesthood in Heb. v. 5.
Now the specific reference here is that despite betrayal, despite condemnation, despite scourging, despite crucifixion, despite death, despite entombment, He is still through it all “My Son,” the same, yesterday, to-day and for ever. In virtue of this being so, it was not possible He should be holden of death. On the morning, and at the moment of, the resurrection, the Father declared in a particular manner regarding the Messiah—Son, “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee.” This just means, “In virtue of thy being as to thy divine nature my Son, and becoming the Messiah, suffering, dying, procuring everlasting redemption for all who obey thee, I as Judge raise thee to enjoy thy reward for evermore.” We do not take the word “begotten” to have direct reference to God’s act in raising Christ from the dead, seeing that as Addison Alexander indicates, it has strict reference to the essential nature and divine Sonship of Christ. His being in Himself the only-begotten Son is a guarantee of the impossibility of His being holden by death.
Let us now read in paraphrase some of these words again: “They had fulfilled all that was written of Him, and laid Him in a sepulchre. But God raised Him from the dead, and He was seen many days . . . and we declare unto you glad tidings how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath completely fulfilled—for eternity fulfilled—the same unto us their children (despite, and by means of, crucifixion and the burial), in that He hath raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, “Thou art my Son.” By the resurrection, He who is the Son essentially, the only begotten Son (Jo. i. 18), becomes also the “First-begotten of the dead” (Rev. i. 5). His divine Sonship, if we may state it, encircles and informs His messianic work with divine glory, power and majesty, in both the estates of humiliation and exaltation. He is now anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows. Part of His joy is to share it with them. We do not pursue the matter further.
- The conclusion has two points, (1) that justification is solely by penitent faith in the Saviour; and (2) if He is rejected, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” “Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish.” May the prayer of the man of God be ours, “O satisfy us early with thy mercy that we may rejoice and be glad all our days . . . and let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us . . . yea, the work of our hands, establish thou it.”
Archbishops’ Call to Day of National Prayer.
By Rev. JAMES MACLEOD.
THE Archbishops of Canterbury and York have issued a statement on the Day of National Prayer, as follows:—”His Majesty the King has summoned the nation to observe ‘Sunday,’ July 6, as a Day of National Prayer to Almighty God. Every citizen should prepare himself for that day for serious thought. This nation made its great and glorious contribution towards the winning of the war; the sacrifices which we made for
victory have sorely crippled us. We turned hopefully to plan for justice and peace in the world and for social prosperity at home; we find that only by long and severe exertions can we secure the necessities of our national life. The severity of the task demands that all thoughts of personal advantage and sectional interests should be subordinated to the common good, that all forms of distrust and dishonest dealing be laid aside that all should freely give the best that is in them, that we should be united by a common code of honour, ideals and fellowship. These things cannot be unless we all turn to God and find our unity and strength in obedience to Him. Accordingly, we call our fellow-citizens in the coming weeks to examine our national life and our own personal lives, frankly and sincerely, by the standards of the Ten Commandments and of Christ’s teaching. To repent of our irreligion which by denying God the honour due to Him, distorts our personal lives and our common life. To turn to God in prayer that He may teach us our duties to Him and to our neighbours and to the community. To seek the daily help of God in our lives and in our common obedience to Him, we may meet each day’s demands. With such preparation, the National Day of Prayer will be a deliberate and intelligent act of humble prayer to Almighty God, we can face all that is asked of us in united faith, confidence and hope.—Geoffrey Canturr. Cyril Ebor. May 6, 1947.”
The above statement expresses some very fine and appropriate sentiment if the two Archbishops were in earnest and meant exactly in heart and conscience what they really express in words! If we “examine our national life and our personal lives, frankly and sincerely, by the standards of the Ten Commandments and of Christ’s teaching,” the Bishops must begin to purge the Protestant Church of England of the accumulative Romish Ritualism that has putrified that Church to its very core. One of the Ten Commandments speaks thus:—”Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I am the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” If the Archbishops mean to do what they say, they are in duty and honour bound to reform the Church of England from top to bottom. They must depose, and excommunicate all the Anglo-Catholic clergy in their Church. That is the plain teaching of the Ten Commandments, and of their Author, the Lord Jesus Christ. The “teaching” of Christ is in the strictest accordance with the Ten Commandments. The “teaching” of Christ is, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” If Popery, masses, altars, confessions, burning of candles, praying to the dead, and for the dead, and many other forms of gymnasium is carried on in that Church known to the two Archbishops, contrary to the Word of God, and the Articles of their religion, why did they not apply the Ten Commandments to their Romish Clergy long ago?
When an individual or nation turns to the Lord it must apply itself to the Word of God and examine the conscience, heart, life and conduct in the light of God’s truth. It is futile to think that we can turn to the Most High and ignore his unerring Word in Law or Gospel. It must be to the Law and to the Testimony that we must appeal. Israel could not prosper against their enemies as long as the “goodly Babylonish garment, and the two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, . . . I coveted them, and took them, and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent and the silver under it.” As long as this nation tolerates and countenances the idolatry and blasphemies of the Pope of Rome, national fasting and prayers will be gross mockery, deceit and hypocrisy. It is heart religion God requires and looks not for good words from the flattering lips of men! The Church of England is groaning, sighing, and pained to death with the burden of idolatry practised within her borders for a long, long time in violation of her solemn promises, engagements, and thousands of Jesuits working night and day within that Church to conform her to the “Mother of harlots, and the abomination of the whole earth. How many thousands of her clergy have blotted out the 2nd Commandment from the Word of God, and how then can the Archbishops expect the Most High to bless their efforts when they know and connive at the work of the Jesuits in their midst? We have the same terrible conditions prevailing in Scotland. It is not what it used to be, “Thus saith the Lord,” but what saith the Assembly, and how do men ever expect the Lord to hear them, when they deny and reject the Word of God: as if God was of a different mind from His Word! There is a difference between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland in this respect; the English Church is still bound by the 39 Articles, whereas the Church of Scotland is not bound by the Word of God as unerring, nor by the Confession of Faith as her Creed, and standard of doctrines, practice or belief. We have departed from the Word of God as a nation, and if we do not turn to it our “Days of National Prayer” are vain jangling, and like as we read in Zech.: “There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds; for their glory is spoiled; a voice of the roaring of young lions; for the pride of Jordan is spoiled.” Let any one with a modicum of common sense look at the conduct of the people on the Lord’s Day, and he or she must be convinced that we resemble the pagans of ancient Greece or Rome more than Christians!
Where is the discipline of the Word of God, when ministers of religion, office-bearers, church members, travel by steamer, train and bus on the Sabbath Day like any ordinary day of the week? They can be at “Holy Communion” in the morning, and on the golf course the rest of the day. It is the discipline of the Protestant Church that has broken down completely. It is mob law! It was reported in the press on the 5th of May that the Royal Family attended a “Homeward Bound” Concert on Sabbath afternoon on board the “Vanguard” on the quarter-deck. Will the Archbishops draw the attention of their Majesties to this breach of the Ten Commandments, as the Fourth saith, “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy,” for the Lord, not for concerts, laughing and sports. We know very well that there is a most determined effort by the enemies of the truth of God to blot out the Lord’s Day from our nation and to turn the sacred Day to sport and pleasure. The secular press are almost
all engaged in the same effort and fully justifying the methods used to change the quiet of the Sabbath Day to all kinds of sport. As reported in the press, the Parks Committee of Dundee Town Council decided to extend the hours of “Sunday” golf, and allow “Sunday” football at Fair-muir. A “Sunday” dance band contest was also approved. The Church of Scotland must be silent, can neither protest, nor refuse church privileges to her members who attend the golf course on Sabbath, the dance-hall, or the football match as the Courts of that Church are engaged in the most secular work, such as the “Open-door” on God’s Day.
In England the situation is not better if not worse. We are verily a “baptised pagan nation.” How long will it last? It is reported in the press that there are one thousand divorces pending before the Law Courts every week. This is a violation of the Ten Commandments in the most awful sense. How are the Archbishops to deal with this business? The Roman Catholic population in Britain are helping forward to desecrate the Lord’s Day by every means in their power, publicly own and boast of their success in helping the law-breakers of this nation. Now, the gates are being open to Italians, Poles, and Roman Catholics from the Continent to come to Britain to add to the ruin and help the pagan priests of the Pope to destroy the glorious work of the Reformers. God’s people are now in Babylon in their own nation! The Babylonians are the masters in Church and State. It seems to us that matters will not get better for a long time to come. Yea, that they will get worse, more godless, and hold in sin openly, and ripen for the most appalling judgments in the history of the world. We do not venture to suggest in what form these judgments will take place; that is hid from us, but that this mockery of God by the devil will be terminated in fearful judgments we need not doubt nor question it. The first sign that may be looked for, and indeed expected, is a turning to the Word of God, not to the howling of men when they may be afraid of some sudden judgment to fall upon them that will land then in the pit of destruction. When men turn to the Word of God, believe, search it, and see its blessed revelation to fallen man, his state, condition, ruin, guilt, misery and hell-deservedness; then; and not till then, will men begin to pray in reality.
When young godly King Josiah heard the law of God read and expounded to him in its glorious spirituality and requirements, he rent his garments in perfect horror of his own and his nation’s condition before the Lord God of Israel! It requires the same divine power to convince the Archbishops, Bishops, Pastors, Kings, Queens, Statesmen and commoners before men and women will pray in truth to the Lord Jesus Christ for mercy. What do ignorant men know about “Almighty God” apart from Jesus Christ? Nothing! Man is compared to the brute beast in his knowledge of God Almighty without the revelation of Jesus Christ in his soul through the Word of God applied savingly, graciously, and lovingly by the Holy Ghost. Prayer can only be presented to God through our Lord Jesus, our blessed High Priest, who stands before the throne of the eternal God as our Saviour. If a sinner dare attempt come in any other way he is doomed to die! May God, the Holy Spirit, open the eyes of men in this nation and other nations to understand this, and flee to Christ as the only refuge from the storms of eternal death.—J. M.
An Camadh ‘s a’ Chrannchur.
Le TOMAS BOSTON.
“Smuainich air obair Dhé; oir eo is urrainn an ni sin a dheanamh
direach a rinn e-san càm?”—Eccles. vii. 13.
Tha beachd cothromach a’ ghabhail de fhreasdalaibh àmhgharach ro
fheumail chum neach a thoirt gu giùlan air mhodh Criosduidh fodhpa;
agus is ann a mhàin a réir creidimh, agus cha’n ann a réir seallaidh, a tha
a’ bheachd sin r’a fhaotuinn. Oir, is e solus an fhocail a mhàin a tha
‘g am foillseachadh gu cothromach, a’ nochdadh obair Dhé annta, agus
rùntean, freagarrach do’n iomlanachd neamhaidh. ‘Nuair a bheir neach
fainear, agus a ghabhas e beachd iomchuidh de na nithe so le sùil a’
chreidimh, tha sealladh cothromach aige de na freasdalaibh amhgharach,
a tha freagarrach chum glusadan buaireasach nan aignidhean truailidh
a chasg fo choslasaibh dubhach bho’n leth a mach.
‘S ann fo’n bheachd so tha Solamh ann an toiseach a’ chaibdeil so, ag
ainmheadh iomadh ni eug-samhuil, a tha ‘n an co-dhunaidhean iongantach
air taobh nithibh àraidh, a tha ‘g amharc uamharraidh agus gruamaich,
do shuil an fhaireachaidh, agus uime sin gu coitchionn air am meas
doilghiosach agus dìlteil: tha e cur an cèill “gur fearr latha bàis no
latha breith neach”; eadhon, latha bàis neach, a thàinig gu bhi ‘na charaid
do Dhia tre chreidimh, agus a chaith a bheatha chum onòir Dhé, agus
math a ghinealaich; agus le sin a thog e féin suas gus an deadh ainn
taitneach sin, “is fearr na ola ungaidh luachmhor,” rann 1. Air an
doigh cheudna, tha e cur an cèill gur fearr “tigh a’ bhròin na tigh na
cuirme, doilgheas na ghùire, agus achnhasan duine glic na òran amadana”;
oir ged is e ‘n aon mu dheireadh is ro thaitniche, gidheadh ‘s e a’ cheud
aon is ro tharbhachiche, rann 2—5. Agus thug e fainear le cùram, eionnas
a tha dàoinne ann an cunnart, cha’n e a mhàin bho ghruaime agus bho
dhròch làimhseachadh an t-saoghail “gu’n cuir foirneart duine glic air
a chaothach,” ach mar an ceudna bho fhaolte agus bho bheadradh an
t-saoghail, “gu’m mill tìodhlacadh an eridhe”; uime sin, a chionn gu bheil
cunnart air gach làimh, tha e cur an cèill “gur fearr deireadh gach ni”
saoghalta “na ‘thoiseach,” rann 7, 8. Agus bho’n iomlan tha e a’ co-
dhunadh gu cothromach, gur fearr a bhi iriosal agus foighidneach, na
bhi àrdanach agus mi-fhoighidneach fo làimh smachdachaidh Dhé; a chionn,
anns a’ cheud chor, gu bheil neach gu glic ùmhal do’n ni sin da rireadh
a’s feàrr; agus anns a’ chor mu dheireadh, gu bheil e’ cathachadh ‘n a
aghaidh, rann 8. Agus tha e ‘g ar comhairleachadh gu’n bhi mi-thoilichte
le ar crànnchur, air son na trioblaid a ta ann, rann 9; tha e a’ toirt
ràbhach gu’n bhi gu mi-runach a’ coimeasachadh nan àmanna a chaidh
seachad ris na h-àmannaibh a tha làthair, agus mur sin a’ cur iomchair
mi-iomchuidh as leth freasdal Dhé, rann 10. Agus an aghaidh na càil
fhrionasaich agus ghearanach sin, tha e air tùs a’ seòladh iocshlaint
choitchionn, eadhon gliocas naomh, mar an ni a ni neach comasach gus
a chuid a ‘s feàrr a dheanamh do na h-uile ni, agus a bheir beatha eadhon
ann an cuisibh claoidhteach, rann 11, 12. Agus a rithist iocshlaint
shònruichte, a ta a’ co-sheasamh ann an cleachdadh iomchuidh a dheanamh
do’n ghliocas sin a chum beachd eothromach a’ ghabhail do’n chùis,
“Smuainich air obair Dhé: oir có is urrainn an ni sin a dheanamh direach
a rinn esan càm?” Anns na briathraibh sin tha air an sònreachadh, 1.
An iochslaint féin. 2. Iomchuidheachd na h-iochslaint sin. Air tús. Is i ‘n iochslaint féin, a bhi beachdachadh gu glic air lámh Dhé anns gach ni a mhothaicheas sinn a’ teachd cruaidh oirnn; “Smuainich air obair Dhé, no am bheil thu faicinn a lámh-san,” anns a’ chuid is caime, is gairbhe, agus is mi-thaitniche de d’ ehrannchur, eadhon, anns na trioblaidibh a tha cómhlachadh riut ann. ‘S math a tha thu a’ faicinn na crois féin; seadh, tha thu ‘g a tionndadh thairis ann a’ d’ intinn, agus air do shocair a’ beachdachadh oirre air gach taobh; mar an ceudna, tha thu ‘g amharc air an ni so agus air an ni ud eile mar an dara aobhar aice, agus mar sin tha thu ann an corruich agus ann an mi-shuaimeanach; ach, nam b’ail leatsa bhi aig fois agus air do riarchadh mu’n chuis, tog suas do shuilean ri n’camh, agus faic gur e gnìomh lámh Dhé a ta ann. Amhairc air sin, agus thoir fainear e gu ceart; beachdaich air mathair-aobhair a chamaidh a th’ann do ehrannchur, agus faic gur e obair Dhé a ta ann, agus gur ann uaithe-san a ta e ‘S an dara aite. A. thaobh iomchuidheachd na h-iochslaint so, tha a’ bheachd sin de na chamadh ‘n ar ehrannchur ro fheagarrach chum tograidhean mi-chiatach a’ chridhe a chuir sámhach agus gu sinne’ dheanamh tosdach fodha: “Oir cò is urrainn (is e sin, cha’n urrainn a h-aon) an ni sin a dheanamh dìreach a rinn Dia càm? A thaobh a’ chamaidh ‘nad ehrannchur, ‘s e Dia a rinn e; agus feumaidh e mairsinn am feadh is àil leis-san. Ged a chleachdadh tu t-uile neart chum a dheanamh cómhnard, no direach, bithidh t’oidheirp diomhain; ‘cha dirich e a dh’aindeoin na’s urrainn thusa’ dheanamh; oir is esan a mhàin a rinn e is urrainn a leasachadh no dheanamh dìreach. Tha a’ bheachd agus an sealladh so do’n chuis, ‘n a mheadhon iomchuidh, chum daoiné a riarchadh agus an cuir ‘n an tosd cómhladh, agus gu’n toirt chum stroichdadh gu h-ùmhal do ‘n Cruithear agus do’n Uachdaran fo’n camadh ehrannchuir. A nis, gabhaidh sinn brìgh a’ bhùinn teagaig anns na tri cinn theagaig so. I. Ciod air bith camadh a th’ann an ehrannchur neach, ‘s ann de dheanamh Dhé a tha e. II. An ni a tha Dia a’ faicinn iomchuidh a chamadh ann ar ehrannchur, cha’n urrainn sinn a dhireadh. III. Tha beachd a’ gabhail air a’ chamadh ‘s a’ ehrannchur mar obair Dhé, no de dheanamh-sa ‘n a mheadhon iomchuidh chum neach a thòirt gu giulan mar Chriosduidh fodha.
TEAGASG. I.—Ciod air bith camadh a th’ann an ehrannchur neach, ‘s ann de dheanamh Dhé a tha e.
An so tha dà ni ri thòirt fainear, eadhon, an camadh féin, agus gur ann de dheanamh Dhé a ta e.
I. A thaobh a’ chamaidh féin, agus chum gur ann is fearr a thugear e, tha na nithe so a leanas air an toirt fainear: I. Tha cùrsa àraidh de fhrasdaibh tre riaghladh Dhé a’ tachairt ann am bheatha gach aon againne ‘s an t-saoghail: Agus is e sin ar ehrannchur, a th’air a chur air leth dhuinne le Dia, ar Cruithear agus ar n-Ard-uachdaran, aig am bheil ar n-anail ‘n cùrsa so de fhrasdaibh ag eadar-dhealachadh gu mòr ann an ehrannchur an t-suaigh, a réir toil agus gean-math an Ard-riaghlair, a tha ‘g orduchadh ehrannchuir dhaoine anns an t-saoghail air iomadh doigh, ag ardachadh cuid, agus ag isleachadh cuid eile. 2. Anns a’ chùrsa sin de fhrasdaibh, tha cuid dhiubh a’ tionndadh a’ mach an aghaidh ar gné agus ar càil; agus is iad sin a tha’ deanamh a’ chamaidh ‘n ar ehrannchur. Am feadh a tha sinn ‘s an t-saoghail bithidh freasdaibh garbha, cho math ri freasdaibh nùine ann ar cor agus ann ar ehrannchur.
Air uairibh tha nithe a’ dol air an aghaidh gu réidh taitneach; ach an ùine ghoirid, tha freasdal eile ag atharrachadh a’ chùrsa sin, a tha ‘n a phian agus ‘n a chràdh dhuinn, mar gu’n toireamaid ceum docharrach a bheireadh oirnn imeachd bacach. 3. Tha camadh air ehomeiginn ann an crannchur gach neach a th’anns an t-saoghail so. Tha luchd-gearain ullamh air a bhi a’ coimeas gu graineil aon ni ri ni eile; oir tha iad ag amharc mu’n cuairt agus a’ gabhail beachd farsuinn de chor muinntir eile, ‘s cha ‘n ‘eil iad a’ faicinn ni ‘sam bith ann ach ni a tha direach, agus ceart a réir càil neach: mar sin tha iad a’ cur an eàill gu bheil crannchur an coimhearsnaich gu h-iomlan direach. Ach is breith mhearchadach sin; oir cha’n ‘eil iomlaineachd anns a’ bheatha so, no chrannchur fo fhlaitheanas gun chrois. Oir, “na h-uile oibre fo ‘n ghrein, feuch, is diomhanas iad uile, agus buaireadh spioraid. An ni a ta càm, cha ghabh e’ deanamh direach,” Eecl. i. 14, 15. Co shaoileadh nach robh crannchur Haman gle dhìreach am feadh a bha ‘theaghlach a’ cinneachdainn, agus e féin a’ soirbheachadh ann an saoibhreas, agus ann an urram, air dha bhi ‘n a Phriomh-uachdaran ann an cuirt Phersia, agus mòr ann an sealladh an Righ? Gidheadh, aig a’ cheart àm, bha camadh ‘n a chrannchur, a chràdh e cho mòr, “s nach deanadh so uile a bheag de mhath dha.” Est. v. 13. Mothaichidh gach neach c’ait’ am bheil e féin air a theannachadh, ged nach tuig cach e. Cha’n ‘eil crannchur neach air bith ‘s an t-saoghail so gu h-uile càm; tha an còmhnuidh ni-eiginn còmhnaid agus direach ann. Gu cinnteach, an uair a lasas fearg dhaoine, ‘s a bheir i ceò air an inntinn, tha iad ullamh gu ràdh, gu bheil na h-uile ni eli aca-san ‘s nach ‘eil ni sam bith ceart maille riu. Ach ged tha, agus ged bhiteas gu siorruidh, an sgeula sin fior ann an ifrinn, gidheadh cha’n ‘eil e fior gu brath ‘s an t-saoghail so: oir gu cinnteach cha ‘n ‘eil aon bhoimne do shòlas air a dheònachadh ann an “ifrinn.” Luc. xvi. 25. Ach ‘s an t-saoghail so tha e ‘n còmhnuidh ‘n a ni cinnteach gur “ann do thròcairibh an Tighearna nach ‘eil sinn air ar eaitheadh.” Tuir. iii. 22, 24. Thàinig an camadh ‘s a’ chrannchur chum an t-saoghail tre’n pheacadh; ‘s e an tuiteam a rinn an camadh. Rom. v. 12. “Thainig peacadh a steach do’n t-saoghail tre aon duine, agus bàs tre ‘n pheacadh, agus tha’n camadh ‘s a’ chrannchur air a’ ghabhail a steach fo’n bhàs sin, mar a ta staid shòlais no shoirbheachaidh; air a cur an eàill ann an cainnt an sgrìobtuir, le bhi beò. I. Sam. xxv. 6; Eoin iv. 50, 51. Chròm am peacadh cridheachan agus intinne dhaoine, ‘nuair a thàinig iad gu bhi càm a thaobh an lagh naomha; agus ann an ceartas chròm Dia an crannchur, air dhòigh ‘s gu’n d’thàinig e gu bhi cam mar an ceudna. Agus tha’n camadh so ann ar crannchur gu neo-sgarail a’ leantuin ar cor peacach, gus an cur sinn dhinn corp a’ pheacaidh agus a’ bhàis so, agus gus am faigh sin an taobh a steach de gheata nam flaithcanais.
Chum na nithe so a mhìneachadh, tha’n camadh ‘s a’ chrannchur gu coitichonn a’ cur an eàill dà ni. 1. Amhghar. 2. Mairsinneachd. A réir sin tha e deanamh là an amhghair fa chomhair là an t-soirbheachaidh ‘s an rann air ball an deigh a’ bhùinn theagaig.
Air tus. ‘S e an camadh ‘s a chrannchur, earrann air chor-eiginn dhe thrioblaid. Is e an earrann a tha réidh agus direach dhe ‘n chrannchur a’ chuid sin a tha soirbheachadh, agus a’ dol air aghaidh a réir miann neach; agus is e am mir a tha càm dheth, a’ chuid sin a tha càlg-dhireach an aghaidh sin. Choimheasg Dia an dà ni so ann an crannchur dhaoine ‘s
an t-saoghal so; chum mar a tha ni-eiginn de shoirbheachadh ann, a tha deanamh a chûrsa dhirich, mar sin gu bheil mar an ceudna ni-eiginn de thrioblaid ann, a tha deanamh a’ chamaidh. Cha’n e a mhàin gu bheil an coi-mheasg so ann an crannchur nan naomh, d’am bheil e air innse, “anns an t-saoghal gu’m bi àmhghar aca,” ach mar an ceudna tha e ann an crannchur nan uile dhaoine, mar chaidh a thoirt fainear cheana. ‘S an dara àite. Is amhghar e a mhaireas ré seal. Cha mheas sinne mar ni càm, ni sam bith a rachadh a chromadh ‘s a lùbadh ri cheile le ainnear, ma’s e ‘s gu’n dìreadh e air bàll mar bha e roimhe. Tha sgiursaidhean gèur ann de’n t-sliat smachdachaidh, a theid mar speach troimh cliathaich neach, agus air bàll tha na h-uile ni ceart a rithist; feudaidh crannchur neach a bhi air a dhoreachadh gu h-obann, agus a’ ghruaim falbh mu’n toir e’n aire. Ach fo’n chamaidh, air do neach ùine bhi aige chum a chràdh a mhothachadh, tha e ann an an-fhios chum an camadh fheotuinn air a dhìreadh; mar sin is amhghar an camadh crannchuir a mhaireas re ùine àraidh.
(Ri leantuin.)